The Hawaiian gazette., 1887-08-16
Freadom of the Press.

In the weekly GAZETTE of August
9th was published the official report
of the opinion of the Supreme Court,
by Chief Justice Judd, on the case of
contempt of Court against Mr.. r. j.
Creighton, editor of the Adpsrtiser,
who was charged with that offense
for having published the full text of
a bill in equity, while the case was
pending against Mr.. L. Aholo, late
Minister of the Interior. 1t will be
remembered that the bill in equity
was published without comment, a
copy having been placed at the dis
posal of the Adrertiser reporter in the
Clerks Office of the Supreme Court.
In the opinion of the Court, "pubIica
tons which tend to affect, hinder, or
obstruct the administration of Justice
while it is in process of administra-
ton are reprehensible." At the same
time it was admitted that it could not
be said, in MIR. Creighton's case, that
the publication was an attempt to
influence the mind of the Justice who
was to hear the cause. But
it is calculated to prejudice the public
concerning the merits of the case
then pending, and clearly falls within
the rule" Upon these grounds the
Court found the respondent guilty.
and mulcted him in costs, as sufficient
punishment.
The above reorganization of the |
judgment of the Supreme Court is
made for the purpose of reviewing it
in the light of recent decision of
Lord Chief Justice Coleridge. of
England, in matter of exactly the
same purport. A report of the de-
cision in question is given on page 2
in this weeks issue. Lord Coleridge
applies the principle that communi-
cations are privileged which are made
IN good faith to persons having a
legitimate interest in the information
sought, and where the persons by
whom the communications are made
stand IN such relation to those to
whom they are made as to render the
OF the communications a rea-
sonable duty" 1t will be noticed
that the criterion, as to what are
privilege communications, is. accord
ing to this decision, the same that
governs cases of libel. Mr.. Hatch
contended for this point in behalf of
Mr. Creighton in the hearing before
our Supreme Court, but Justice
Preston took issue with him in that
regard. Lord Denman, who con
CURED with Lord Coleridge. main
aimed that a journalist was doing his
iuty IN exposing public wrongs, and {
he Chief Justice emphasized this I
by saying that the person I
Who exposes such wrongs " does a great S
,uJIic serEice.' v
Now, the opinions of these eminent
wrists appear to be identical with the =
grounds taken by Mr.. Creighton in i
rs answer to the rule to show cause n
Why he should not be placed in con
empt, and by his counsel i'll pleading. c
n his answer, the respondent 1--WE Il
.uote the AdUertiser's Photographic C
eport Of the hearing), denies that \
be publication in question was in ?
ended to prejudice the public with c,
aspect to the interests of said cause. t.
7 to prejudice or impair said Aholo's b
lghts to a just and impartial de IT,
lslon, or to embarrass, impede or b.
bstruct the course of justice therein is
that said abstract was pub y
shed merely as a matter of news in 81
.hich the public was interested :*** bs
lat said abstract was published in Gu
God faith, and concerned the official
cts of a public officer of which the ne
ublic had the right to be informed" 10
Alr. Hatch, counsel for the respond &C
1T, said that the opposing counsel q
ad been driven in support of his mo bb e
on to the position that nothing could be
2 published at any time respecting mi
~ action at law until after the trial pc
de thought that position went alto h. h.
ether to far, and that the authorities in
ted were authorities which went far Ba
.yond what the courts in modern 70 70
mes would hold were the same oues- oe e
1ns submitted to them. He referred thr
times when the courts prevented th'
y true publication of report of ~
dicial proceedings, and went ON to ine
-e Lord Chief Justice Cockburn Ju
edecessor of Lord Coleridge. in the n nn
mems Bench Division. who said fiat q a.